Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Reader adeelarshad82 writes to lets us know that Spain has now codified a "Right to Broadband," thus following the lead of Finland. Spain's industry minister announced that citizens will have a legal right from 2011 to be able to buy broadband Internet access of at least 1 Mb/sec at a regulated price wherever they live. The telecoms operator holding the so-called "universal service" contract would have to guarantee it could offer "reasonably" priced broadband throughout Spain.

Don't blame the Spanish for setting a relatively 'low' speed requirement, blame the modern slew of Web developers who insist on bloating their pages with graphics, animation and JavaShit that only their own Core 2 Trio can handle. Blame the guys who insist on using verbose protocols without compression, blame the guys who maintain that 'Web applications' are the past, present and future. Using a web application makes as much sense as using a satellite phone to talk to the guy standing next to you

Maybe I'm answering to a flamebait, but theres nothing wrong with web applications. Many people want to have their email in webmail instead of using a client. Many people write to forums, news sites and sites like slashdot instead of newsgroups (as you seem to do too). Many people are perfectly fine using twitter and facebook for communicating (facebook even has that IM "client"). And because bandwidth is considerably cheap now a days (well in some countries at least, and it's getting there everywhere too), it becomes easier for people to upload a video file to a web service to convert it to another format than to download all the required codecs and find a software that can do it. Remember that majority of people aren't geeks.

That doesn't mean there's no desktop application alternatives and that you couldn't use them. I do for email, IM and many more things because it suits me better. But it doesn't mean other people couldn't do otherwise.

If you do not like those web applications developed by "modern hipster web devs", just don't use them and let people who like them use.

A good developer will attend to function first and form second. Part of function is efficiency.A bad developer barely even understands the concept of efficiency and function is frequently their last priority - just barely enough of a requirement to justify the site in the first place.

Look at slashdot for fuck's sake - you can't even metamod without javascript.Like we need fucking javascript to click a fucking radio button for good/bad/no-rating?

a good web developer focuses on form _and_ function. In web development space, at least, they are equally important. things have to look as good as well as they perform. why is it that people always think it has to be one or the other.

maybe at slashdot at least, people here generally prefer the function part.

We had to make do with everythin in 24 point Times New Roman Marquee, in black, white, cyan or magenta mind you. And for graphics we ad ASCII art. And none of this bloody Javascript nonsense either. If you wanted to submit a form, you filled it in bloody right the first time, and then submitted it... if you'd fucked something up, you ad to redo the bloody thing from scratch as a lesson to be more bloody careful next time.

This is not a "right" to anything. These people need to look up the definition and history of what a "right" is.

This is merely a law that regulates the Internet providers, requiring them to offer service to everybody for a regulated price. That's a regulation on the business side, not a "right" on the consumer's side. There is a pretty big difference. If it were a "right", it would not cost anything.

We have similar laws. For example, within certain geographical limits, my local utility is required to offer me electricity at a regulated rate, no matter who I am. It's exactly the same kind of law. But that doesn't mean I have a "right" to electricity! If I get too far behind on my bill it can get shut off. It's merely the ability to buy something, not a "right" to it. If I had a "right" to electricity, nobody could legally shut it off.

Yesterday I heard people saying it's okay for President Obama to block FOX's access to the white house press pool. They said "FOX has a right to freedom of the press. They don't have the right to access." Couldn't the same argument be made about internet? You have the right to buy any product you want, but that doesn't mean you have a right to broadband access. Everyone already had dialup access. Thoughts? Objections?

(No this is not a troll. This is the Socratic method (asking questions; making people think).)

You do know that fox was sued, and the courts ruled that they are not obliged to tell the truth in their "news", right?

Actually the case your thinking of decided whether or not the term "Fair and Balanced" was subject to trademark by Newscorp. (Fox's parent corporation). Among the court's rulings were that perceptions of bias don't have any impact on whether or not the phrase is subject to trademark.

Or it is possible that you are simply refering to some threat of a suit over slander. Most news agencies are subject to these occasionally. Courts will generally just point out that slander cannot be used to usurp the first am

You certainly could say that, if you wanted to; but that isn't what the Spanish did.

Ignoring the (idealistically interesting but practically useless) quibbling about whether some rights are "natural" and merely enforced by law and others are "artificial" and created by law, you can pretty much define a "right" in any form.

You could say: "You have the right to buy any product you want; but no particular right to have any product offered to you".

Given that running an ISP tends to require "utility easements" all over the place, (which are, themselves, arguably a violation of property rights; but tend to be tolerated because there are no good alternatives), the outfit that wishes to offer internet service is being given a great deal just to allow it to exist(and, in practice, a great many utilities also receive overt subsidies). It isn't obviously a violation of property rights to make these necessary easements conditional(in this case, on offering s

Of course it's okay for Obama to block Fox', or anybody else's, access to the White House press pool. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee access, it just allows people to say and print what they've got. This isn't a matter of an inherent right to be in the press pool or my underwear drawer or wherever.

Similarly, Spain's decision isn't a matter of inherent rights. They're creating a legal right to broadband access, just like in most civilized places people have a legal right to electrical and phone s

No, you are confusing rights with privileges. A true right cannot be "granted", it just exists. In our own Constitution and Declaration of Independence, for example, it is noted that our actual "rights" are intrinsic to ourselves. They do not come from government, and government does not have authority to take them away.

Something that can be given (and subsequently taken away) is a privilege, not a right.

In the common usage of english, a right may be inalienable (such as Constitutional rights) or granted (by law or contract).

That may not be the usage you (or I for that matter) prefer, but until one of us becomes the official keeper of the english language, we'll have to deal with the language as used rather than as prescribed.

I only have 0.7 Mbit/sec. I don't consider my rights to have been violated. High-speed access is a *luxury* not a right, same as having an Honda Acura instead of a cheap Honda econocar is a luxury not a right.

I only have 0.7 Mbit/sec. I don't consider my rights to have been violated. High-speed access is a *luxury* not a right, same as having an Honda Acura instead of a cheap Honda econocar is a luxury not a right.

That is your opinion. However, in Spain and in Finland They The People have chosen otherwise.

However, that concept stems from the idea that rights are a human concept which people decide everyone is entitled to, not something which all men have because another man interpreting a possible non-existant m

This is an important illustration of the Rule: "Libertarians are the stupidest people on the planet."

They believe taxation is "stealing from your neighbors" but wet themselves if there are potholes in the road or their garbage isn't picked up. Best of all, their preferred medium for expressing their views is the Internet.

They also make those funny little faces that make them think they're looking all "John Galt" when they're really looking all "Pee Wee Herman".

You could say the exact same thing on *every* tax. In your example it also violates your "human rights" that you are required to pay income tax to your country. But that is how society works, and in European countries the taxes usually fund many basic things to people (yes, availability of health care for everyone is a basic thing!). Yes, I hate paying higher taxes. But on the other hand it provides everyone on the society better human rights.

It's not a "belief", it's an insistence. Certainly it is a product of the society, but at the same time, society is molded by the concept.

We, the citizens of the United States, insist that we have certain rights by virtue of our mere existence as human beings. We don't "believe" we do based on some abstract morality from above (well, some do, but they are rather the exception). We INSIST that we have those rights. And we are willing to go to war over that concept. Neither men in the sky or any other kind

Yep the Spanish constitution is wrong. So too is the U.S. constitution when it discusses copy "rights".

These are not inalienable, instinctive, natural rights. They are temporary government-granted privileges of monopoly, typically at the expense of your neighbors who are footing the bill (either directly or indirectly).

I don't know about the situation in your country, but here in the Netherlands your water supply is not free, but you also cannot be cut off, because every citizen has the right to running water in their house. The same thing goes with gas during winter, because you cannot deny people the ability to warm their homes, even if they don't pay for it.

Education is another example. It's not only a right, it's even mandatory for children under 16, even though there is a fee to have your kid in a school.

No it's not a right. It's a guarantee. "If you pay this contractor, we guarantee this contractor will provide this minimal service."

If it were a right, then you would have a right to these people (the contractors) work, that's called slavery.

It's the same thing with this so-called right to healthcare here in the states. You might have a right not to be denied service because of your skin color or country of birth but you do not have a "right" to the efforts of other individuals.

Even if the taxes were raised to 100%? You're still not a slave? (Just something to think about.)

What about the concept of partial slavery? The typical American pays ~40% in total taxes. So in essence you're a slave the first ~40% of the year (upto May 10) and don't achieve total freedom from taxation until after.

I guess I should explain this better. Let's say you have a $100,000/year salary. The first ~$40,000 is not yours. It belongs to the government and while you are earning that first $40K you are a slave to Uncle Sam.

The first ~$40,000 is not yours. It belongs to the government and while you are earning that first $40K you are a slave to Uncle Sam.

Hogwash.You can quit your $100,000-a-year job if you choose, and the government can do nothing to stop you. This is not true of a slave. In fact, if you quit after earning only $30,000, you will owe (using the average rate blah blah blah) $12,000.Taxes are neither slavery nor corvee labor. They are a sliding-scale fee for access to the services which government provides.

Describing taxation as even partial slavery makes about as much sense as saying that if you make $10,000 a year and pay $200 to take you

Slavery is being forced to work. Nobody is forced to work - just that if you do, part of the condition is that you have to pay a tax, and can't claim any arbitrary amount of money that I like as a salary.

>>>Nobody is forced to work - just that if you do, part of the condition is that you have to pay a tax

This argument presumes the government existed first, the people later, and that government "gives" us our jobs, and ~40% is the fee for that privilege.

I have a differing view - the people were first, converting our body's labor to property is a natural right, and the government's officials should be thanking us for *allowing* them to have jobs, rather than fire the whole lot of them.

All physical property depends on material resources which preexisted your birth, or any other human being's birth.

Therefore it's not a "natural right" to claim exclusivityover any material object - to call any material object your property.

Property is a legal right which people through their governments uphold, because it's a very *useful* legal right (as it incentivizes work and wealth-production, and defends us from each other's parasitism). But claiming it a "natural right" is merely a form of superstiti

Oh you can claim any arbitrary ammount of money as a salary - It's called "wage negotiation" and if you claim too high a number you won't get hired. If you work for yourself your product might be too expensive so you sell none. Claim all you want - see if the market bears it. (Grammer Nazi please help with the non animal proper type of bear...)

If you don't work you die. I mean that in the most fundamental way possible. Assume you and your family are stranded on a desert island. How do you survive ? By our nature we are given life but we must engage in certain actions in order to sustain it. That action is productive labour, or "work."

If you don't work, but you are able to sustain your life, it can only be through the productive efforts of others. Someone has to produce your food, your clothing, your shelter etc. So while

Accompanied by NO REPRESENTATION. "Taxation without Representation is Tyranny" went the phrase. I certainly agree with that. But taxation *with* representation isn't tyranny. It's the democratic majority's right to determine by law what property is whose property.

If democracy didn't create such laws, there wouldn't be any property at all, merely possession.

"If you pay this contractor, we guarantee this contractor will provide this minimal service."

But he doesn't have to pay. And it's not called slavery, it's the conditions if you to agree if you want to provide that service, but no one forces you to enter that business. It's no more slavery than an EULA.

No it's not a right. It's a guarantee. "If you pay this contractor, we guarantee this contractor will provide this minimal service."

The right we're talking about here is not the fact you will get service from a contracter when you pay him for it. The right is there will be a contractor available for you if you desire the service. That right is totally free, even though the service is not.

All of this is nit picking over the definition of the word 'right'. It has more than one meaning! Generally, the precise meaning is determined by who we are saying is 'giving' the right - and in the case of 'basic human rights' we usually imply that either 'the natural order of things' or $DEITY 'gave' the rights. All rights do not have to be innate though - I can contractually give you a right of access across my land. In the case of TFA we are talking about a government / constitutionally granted right. Ok? Can we all stop arguing semantics now? Kthx.

Wrong, actually. Just because you have a right to free speech does not mean your nanny state has to bus you wherever you want to go to vent your spleen, build you a platform, buy you a bullhorn, and dragoon a bunch of losers into listening to you stammer, ramble, and make an ass of yourself.

Or, what if your declaration of independence asserts that you have a right to life. That doesn't mean your nanny state has to give you an armored car so nobody shoots you, a chauffeur so you don't hit a tree while you're texting, and a bulletproof vest for when you are shopping or watching the opera. They don't have to stop traffic so nobody can collide with you. They don't have to clothe and feed you so you don't die of exposure or starve to death. They don't have to wipe your ass so flies don't gather and give you a disease. They don't have to watch you 24x7 and come and put you on life support every time you overdose on some self indulgence, let alone stop you doing it in the first place.

The right to broadband mentioned in the article says that no matter where you live, somebody has to OFFER to sell you broadband at a reasonable price. That's a DAMN sight more than you get in the U.S. on this subject.

My home town had to pay to provide police protection for a KKK demonstration.

Yes. The government has a job to protect people from being beaten or killed. It protects KKK members' right to life. The government does NOT have the job to steal money from your neighbors and give the KKK Leader a free podium or a free house. Such a thing would be theft of the neighbors' labor, and an infringement of *their* rights

Also police protection is something that benefits every citizen, and thus legitimate. Everyone pays but also everyone benefits. Giving the KKK Leader a free podium, or me

Obviously yes. You get into a world of hurt if you don't pay your bills. You could even let things get so much out of hand they will take a portion of your salary to pay for your unpaid bills. The fact you're never denied service doesn't mean the problems don't stack up.

Well that explains the existence of the China Firewall. The right of free speech & access to information is revocable "under some circumstances"

I on the other hand think a right is never revocable. You might as well be talking about revoking my right to have a penis. It makes no logical sense to say that an innate quality of the human body can be removed.

It makes no logical sense to say that an innate quality of the human body can be removed.

This is the fundamental fallacy of the doctrine of innate rights.Any actual part of the human body can be removed. People can be born without them, they can become defective and degrade over time. None of those properties apply to rights (as you're conceiving them), which means they're non-corporeal. In fact, there's no objective way to demonstrate that they exist at all. If I make the claim that every man has a Y chromosome, there is objective proof, with some edge cases that don't apply. If I make the claim that every man has the right of free speech & access to information, there can be no objective proof.

There is no reliable basis upon which to determine that a "natural right" exists as an objective property of nature. As a demonstration, try to disprove the existence of a right you do not believe in, such as the right of every man to have three wives if he wishes.

The only way "natural rights" make sense is if we understand the term "natural right" to mean "a legal right to which I think every person should be entitled." There is no way to remove the subjectivity from that statement, and that's okay. At the end of the day, we make our decisions based on what rights we, subjectively, think people should have. It's just better not to give them grand airs as some universal property of nature, rather than reflecting part our system of preferences (which we're ready to defend by force of arms).

This is not a "right" to anything. These people need to look up the definition and history of what a "right" is.

It entirely depends on what sort of philosophy you happen to believe in. Religious people can claim that they have rights, and that they are derived from the existence of their god(s). Others have attempted to create systems of rights that are entirely objective, independent of any deity or supernatural forces. Debates on this have been raging for millenia between all sorts of greater and lesser philosophers. Immanuel Kant, for example, claimed to derive natural rights from reason alone. Legalistic individuals could also say our rights are exactly what the laws say they are.

Even legalistic individuals recognize that rights exist without law. This was the basis for the Nuremberg and Japanese War Crime trials - even though the Jews and Chinese had no legally-protected rights inside Germany, Japan, or the occupied territories, they still had the right to life simply by being human.

This is not a "right" to anything. These people need to look up the definition and history of what a "right" is.

I hate to have to be the one to break this to you... wait, that's a lie. I love to tell people this: There is no such thing as an inherent human right. The government claims you have a right to life but reserves (for itself, no less) the right to kill you. That's hypocrisy of the highest order. In fact, if we REALLY believed in a right to life, we would make saving and extending lives our number one priority. Once you accept that there is really no inherent right to life, it's easy to see that there is real

The Western lifestyle is based upon abstraction of harm to essentially everyone, distilling it into benefit for a privileged few. How many people have literally died to support the energy costs of Slashdot? Obviously I'm at least as willing to force others to pay it as you are, probably far more (too lazy to check posting history.) It is entirely possible to live a lifestyle that is beneficial to continuance of the biosphere in a form useful for life as we enjoy it, so inevitability is no excuse; you and I

Here in the US they often (no, more like "usually") misname laws. The PATRIOT act is the most unpatriotic law ever passed. The CAN SPAM act is one that is sneakily well named, as it essentially says you can spam.

What Madrid is doing is basically what is being done in super-free market, the United States of America. American phone companies are required by state regulators to provide low-cost land-line phone service to citizens whom state laws consider to be indigent. This government subsidy is necessary because the phone is necessary to live adequately in modern society. The phone connects you to emergency services via 911. The phone connects you to the manager (who works you like a slave). The phone connects you to your family. The phone is nearly as important as food, shelter, and clothing.

With the coming of age of the Internet, it will soon be as important as phone service. With the Internet, you can get legal information about registering your vehicle, and about smog-check stations, about filing a complaint with the relevant state agency. You can get information about universities. You can check whether your jury group is required to appear in court on a particular day.

10 years ago, the Internet was an exciting fad. Now, the Internet is an indispensable tool for living in modern society.

Of course, the best use of the Internet is to read articles on Slashdot.

Pretty big difference. In most countries there are cruelty to animals laws. This could be easily rewritten as an animal charter of rights to not have to go through torture. Nothing to see here, move along.

This is hardly a matter of human rights, but it is a significant step forward for many Spaniards who live in rural areas where the only current broadband option is very expensive (and not very reliable) satellite service. Although the article doesn't mention it, it will likely mean that faster service will also be available in those areas. Telefonica's basic DSL service in Madrid these days is 6Mbs.

In my part of rural Spain, the only phone connection is either a Telefonica supplied "wireless" phone, or a mobile. The only sources of internet are by using a 3G dongle (at extortionate rates - not that broadband in Spain is even close to a reasonable price). Some places have WiMax service - but the speed is low, the monthly cap is lower and frankly, the reliability sucks - and the price is high.

I think the state government, jointly subsidized by the fed, should provide fiber to all public schools as a part of the national infrastructure. The school districts should then be allowed to sell bandwidth to providers or directly to the surrounding neighborhoods from those points. The amount of taxes for home owners, paid to school districts, should then be removed or drastically cut. The government gets to have the infrastructure needed for national security. Schools get the tools needed for modern

so, if you have a "right" to free speech, that makes all the media workers slaves?
if you have the right to a fiat trial, that makes all the lawyers slaves?
if you have the right to bare arms, that makes all the sun-lotion manufacturers slaves (bare arms, as in unclothed.... oh, forget it!)

If you break laws, your rights can be taken away. If you kill someone you will be put to prison, and clearly you lose some of your rights then. For example your EU given right to move, live and work freely within EU area might be a little hard to do from prison.

So if those three strikes law will ever get passed, this would probably be the same kind of thing. But EU still cannot force those laws in every country, they can only try to push them to be made laws.

As I understand it, rights can only be taken away by laws passed in either state or federal congress. The right that can be taken away after you've been convicted of a felony is the right to vote (and I think, but not sure) the right to run for public office. Even then there's a specific law about that. Even felons have the right to a jury by their peers, the right to a fair and impartial trial, the right to remain silent, etc. Committing a crime does not remove your rights, if anything it gives you more ab

The right that can be taken away after you've been convicted of a felony is the right to vote (and I think, but not sure) the right to run for public office.

I've never understood this about the US legal system, how can you take away a citizen's right to vote or run for office if he or she has been convicted of a crime? To me this seems very immoral, you are essentially removing one of the most fundamental rights a citizen has, the right to take part in the choosing of those who will be trusted to run the country, or to him-/herself volunteer to run the country(/town/state/county/whatever).

Well there are misdemeanors, like public intoxication, petty theft, evading arrest etc, and then there are felonies like murder, rape, arson, selling state secrets, etc. Two very different classes of crimes and the second class (felonies) demonstrate you don't desire to work within the system and actively work against the greater good - in essence denouncing their citizenship. Technically they're still american citizens, but they lose their ability to sway public offices with their vote.

What is the legality of this bill? On 1st December 2009, the EU will have in law the hated Lisbon treaty, which gives the EU carte blanche to do what the hell it likes with laws in the former 27 EU countries, and is accountable to nobody.

The EU wish to have some sort of three strikes laws for "illegal" copyright downloaders and cut off "offenders", this conflicts with what the Spanish have just done.

So who is going to win Spanish law, or EU law?

Depends how democratic the EU is.

For now the most e-democratic states are Finland and Spain, while France is going toward e-Fascism.

Everything's hated by someone, and I'm fairly sure the Lisbon Treaty doesn't give the EU "carte blanche". I freely admit I know relatively little about the Lisbon Treaty, but I do know that unjustified hyperbole isn't going to help your argument.

The Lisbon Treaty is not a sentient organism therefore it can't "self" do anything. You probably mean something like "If the elected governments of the member-states unanimously agree with with the elected Members of the European Parliament, then certain more decisions will pass from unanimous voting to majority voting".That's not self-amendment ofcourse. That's amendment by elected officials.

The Lisbon Treaty's major improvement is that it now explicitly includes any state's right to secede from the Europe

>>>And it's exactly how the government systems of all the Western world work practically everywhere (including USA). The government is not forced to make a referendum about a law (needing the vote from the people), they only have to do it if they want, otherwise, as long as the constituent assembly of the country chooses so by majority, the law passes.>>>

Not correct. USA's Supreme Law says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to t

First, the Lisbon treaty is far from being hated. Most people are in fact pretty indifferent about it, and a sizeable percentage of the population (especially the more informed art) actually support it. Second, it doesn't give anyone a carte blanche to do anything, I'd suggest you actually read the treaty before making such wild (and completely ridiculous) statements.

Also, "the EU" doesn't want to do anything. Some members of the european commission have expressed sympathy for cutting off offenders, the eur

While I strongly disagree with everything you claimed and find it to actually have no relevance to this discussion, let me point out that since 1963 [wikipedia.org] it has been virtually been agreed to that European Union law is supreme to member state law. Here's the verdict [europa.eu]:

By contrast with ordinary international treaties, the EEC Treaty has created its own legal system which, on the entry into force of the Treaty, became an integral part of the legal systems of the member states and which their courts are bound to app

Seriously, what a pile of Bee Ess. I always lol at these posts aspiring to some sort of utopian ultra-connected future. Seriously, this interweb thing is just a network that sends bits around the place (Now with added censorship!), not a freaking replacement for real life even though some people see it as such.